Are you serious with that video? "Running fuel and ignition control" as somehow this justifies the argument of running a Megasquirt over an EBL system in a 3rd gen in which is already wired from the factory as such? Perhaps you need to carefully inspect the title as well as gist of this thread again, would you like me to rewrite it for you? Are you that dense? Your video proved absolutely nothing, nothing "technical" about running fuel and ignition in a naturally aspirate engine, where are your features with your MS 3.5.7.9 that imply a better system overall, or in this case, over the EBL? Where is this superior timing/dwell control, let's see this incredible rate of acceleration due to the unmatched speed of the system? Do you have a time slip, or just a quick spin going absolutely nowhere? I can throw up an idle and driving video of a 3rd gen running a carb as well as a stock prom with a nice exhaust too, does this win me the prize for best sounding exhaust in a video? Will you be impressed? Of course not, because neither was I with your video, believe me...

The question of this thread was which system would be easier to setup, and the closest to the initial tune. Spend some time actually READING the posts in the threads that you take part in next time. Oh, and, next time, never assume someone hasn't "touched" or been around a Megasquirt system simply because he doesn't use it, because assumptions lead to the readers not taking you seriously anymore, which I myself am now guilty of immediately after reading your response. It was completely ridiculous, especially considering I have had Tuner Studio intsalled on my laptop for years, not to mention the Shadow Dash logger on my android tablet, both which I have researched extensively, and am still not impressed.

Well clearly you have nothing better to do with your time if you went out of your way to show me a video of a naturally aspirated engine. Not to mention, if you were able to see beyond the end of that nose of yours, you would know why I said what I said, and who it was directed to. This is an argument that goes well beyond the scope of this thread, and if anyone is attempting some form of "bashing", clearly it is someone else, and it's directed towards the firmware author of one of these systems. A simple search would have underlined that for you whenever the EBL system is brought up in any thread given, but then again, I am no longer surprised by the level of maturity here. Good job Dave, bravo, your video convinced me of MS superiority.

Hopefully you were able to detect the sarcasm in that last sentence...

Act your age Dave, not your Megasquirt version's...

 

In the end game, the user has the final say. Any system will essentially "run" the engine when tuned correctly, it comes down to the ease of installation, and how user friendly the system is. Dynamic EFI tailors its' systems based on the vehicle, not necessarily universal like the MS, but it is SPECIFIC to the vehicle, but can also be used in any other applications just like a universal system. Example, you ask? Bob's 1984 hot air Buick T-Type (see below), he wanted a system that would give him LOADS of features, easy to install, and user friendly. The EBL SFI-6 is specifically made for his original engine harness, utilizes two MAP sensors to maintain proper resolution throughout the boost range, and gave him all of the features that he needs. Could MS do that? Sure. Is MS easier to install? NO! Would MS provide a closer initial tune? NO! Do you understand what I am saying now Dave, or are you still biased towards the system you chose for your NON 3rd gen vehicle and ridiculously feel the need to defend it every chance you get...?

Oh and yes, that's a Dakota digital dash you see in his T-Type...

 

And that is basically what I was wondering about when I posted this thread. It seemed to me that it had to almost certainly be the case that the initial tune on the EBL would be a lot closer to ideal than any base tune I could get with the megasquirt and for someone with no tuning experience that's a big deal.

 

You know, you guys can disagree and talk tech without having a bar fight, right?

-- Joe

 

Street lethal, you don't like MegaSquirt, fine run whatever you want. I'm not going to spend time trying to convince you why I think it's great because you are too biased to ever agree to anything remotely close to that.
That being said some of your premises are still incorrect. Many people that own these vehicles, or even 80's efi GM go with the ebl because the creator is on these boards and a very helpful user. His creation is plug and play. MegaSquirt providers have recently begun to go the plug and play way but are directing their efforts towards Mazda, some older mustang and mid 2000 four cylinders. In those communities MS is a viable option and seems to be doing well. An offering for plug and play for our vehicles began but never got off the ground because the ebl was already here.

Then you have to admit that any argument about MS not being able to run and run an engine well is silly. I believe it was engine masters that ran a competition and maybe three of the top six or seven were running MegaSquirt.

A comment that may have been implied by you that anybody not for the ebl is a personal attack against the creator is also silly. Myself and Anesthes seem to be big supporters of MegaSquirt and I know neither of us have ever said negative comments about rbob. Chevelle fan I can't say as I haven't had many threads with him.

 

Those are strawmen arguments - I didn't see anyone take such positions. The point was not that megasquirt couldn't run an engine well, it was that if you have a near stock tpi motor the initial tune you get with the EBL will be closer to what is ultimately needed than any initial tune you can likely find for megasquirt. So, for someone like me with no tuning experience and who wants to minimize how much tuning she does, the EBL has a big advantage over the megasquirt.

 

RBob has been a great technical benefit to the forum for many years, and he has spent countless hours helping people for free with diy-prom stuff. I'll always respect him for that.

If RBob actually designed and created a NEW ECU, and it had the same features and functionality of a MS, Holley, Fast, etc I'd probably buy it. But the EBL isn't that. The EBL is a 30 year old computer with a daughter card that allows for flashing and adds some expanded capability. And while it has some features over 'stock', since it's flash only and not real-time it's actually even less useful to me than a stock ECM with an emulator due to the way I have become accustomed to tuning.

-- Joe
-- Joe

 

Joe,

I haven't used MS although MS has actually put forth the effort to adapt their ECU to the LT-5 as the only alternative so far. So I appreciate the fact they did that. Having said that, I think that your description of EBL understates RBob's effort. And it's unfair for you to suggest that people support EBL BECAUSE RBob is a well respected moderator. What I appreciate in EBL is how the software maintains the structure of the OEM while adding much needed functionality.
I'v spent most of my career building software w developers. One approach is to start from scratch, while another is to extend what you already have. The objectives of the OEM developers is significantly different than what the MS developers targeted. Each has its place. To maintain existing operation while adding unanticipated functionality, and do it seamlessly, demonstrates a rather high level of sophistication and a deep understanding of the OEM code.
That's a big reason why RBob is such a resource on this forum. Bruce, of course, was his other bookend. For that he earns my respect and appreciation regarding his contribution to our hobby.
Although I am certain you did not intend to insinuate that EBL was just etc. etc.
I felt it necessary to point out to you that it comes across as a bit condescending. I would be surprised if the people at MS would take that position.
My $.02.